Holt v. Nicholas
| Decision Date | 27 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 1:09-cv-00800-AWI-SAB (PC) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | VIRGIL E. HOLT, Plaintiff, v. R. NICHOLAS, et al., Defendants. |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Virgil E. Holt is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's second amended complaint against Defendants R. Nicholas, A. Holguin, J. Ortega, L. Machado, J. Juden, G. Adame, F. Rivera, R. Valverde, D. Cootnz, M. Bubbel, K. Prior, J. Tyree, Large, Soto, Yuberta, Worrell, Vo, Knight, T. Crouch, Pinkerton, Velasco for violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Carrasco and D. Zanchi for supervisory liability.
Now pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment filed April 30, 2014. Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 18, 2014.
Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (quotation marks omitted); Washington Mutual Inc. v. U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each party's position, whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted). The Court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, but it is not required to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).
Defendants do not bear the burden of proof at trial and in moving for summary judgment, they need only prove an absence of evidence to support Plaintiff's case. In re Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (1986)). If Defendants meet their initial burden, the burden then shifts to Plaintiff "to designate specific facts demonstrating the existence of genuine issues for trial." In re Oracle Corp., 627 F.3d at 387 (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323). This requires Plaintiff to "show more than the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence." Id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986)).
However, in judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court may not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted), and it must draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes entry of judgment, Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1566(2012). The Court determines only whether there is a genuine issue for trial and in doing so, it must liberally construe Plaintiff's filings because he is a pro se prisoner. Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff contends on or about April 9, 2007, Plaintiff was sitting on his bunk when he heard the sound of officers running towards Plaintiff's cell. Plaintiff's cell mate was attempting to flush pruno down the toilet. Defendants Nichols, Holguin, and Ortega appeared at Plaintiff's cell door, and Defendants Nicholas and Holguin began to spray Plaintiff's cell with pepper spray. Defendants ordered Plaintiff and his cell mate to get down and cuff up. Plaintiff and his cell mate complied, but Defendants Nichols and Holguin continued to spray Plaintiff with pepper spray. Defendant Ortega then told Defendant Holguin to deploy a T-16 pepper spray gas grenade into the cell despite Plaintiff and his cell mate being prone on the floor. Plaintiff and his cell mate were in the cell for two minutes for the pepper spray grenade to take effect. Plaintiff had difficulty breathing, and his skin was burning so severely he felt like it was melting.
Defendants Holguin and Nicholas wrote incident and rules violation reports charging Plaintiff with resisting a peace officer. Defendants Machado and Juden stood by and did nothing to intervene as Defendants Nicholas, Holguin, and Ortega applied the unnecessary use of chemical force. Defendant Machado ordered Plaintiff to remove his clothes and crawl backwards towards the cell door. Defendants Machado and Juden dragged Plaintiff out of his cell by his ankles, scraping the skin off both of Plaintiff's knees. Defendant Nicholas then threatened to shoot someone; Plaintiff assumesthis was because of hostility towards black inmates because of attempted assault on a correctional officer by a black inmate.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants Carrasco and Zanchi authorized the use of force against Plaintiff. Defendants Carrasco and Zanchi were aware of the abusive conduct and prior acts of excessive force by Defendants Nicholas and Holguin against inmates but repeatedly failed to take corrective action against them or control their behavior.
Plaintiff asked Defendants Machado, Juden, Ortega, Nicholas, and Holguin to provide him with decontamination, but they ignored Plaintiff. Plaintiff was escorted outside the housing unit by Defendant Valverde. Plaintiff informed Defendant Valverde that he had been pepper-sprayed and had not been decontaminated, and had difficulty breathing and was severely burning. Defendant Valverde ordered Plaintiff to the ground, and stated that if Plaintiff moved, he would bash Plaintiff's head in. Defendant Valverde ignored Plaintiff's request for decontamination.
Plaintiff and his cell mate were escorted to the clinic holding cell, where the sink was clogged and filled to the rim with foul water, and the faucet head was under the rim of the sink. Plaintiff informed Defendants Rivera, Adame, Valverde, and Coontz upon their entering the holding area that the sink was clogged and Plaintiff needed to decontaminate. Defendants ignored Plaintiff's request.
After Plaintiff's requests for decontamination were ignored, he was seen by Defendant Bubbel for a medical incident/injury review report. Plaintiff informed Defendant Bubbel that he had been pepper-sprayed and was in need of decontamination. Defendant Bubbel ignored Plaintiff's request and did nothing to provide Plaintiff with any medical attention. Plaintiff saw Defendant Vo enter the clinic area and informed him that he had been pepper sprayed and was in need of decontamination. Defendant Vo ignored Plaintiff's request.
Plaintiff was interviewed later that afternoon by Defendants Crouch, Tyree, and Hopkins. Plaintiff informed them he had not been decontaminated, and that the use of pepper spray and grenade in the morning was severely burning him. After finishing their investigation, Defendants left the clinic holding area and did nothing to provide Plaintiff with decontamination.
After several hours without decontamination, Plaintiff began to scream in agony, and other inmates yelled for someone to provide assistance. Defendants Knight, Pinkerton, and Velascoeventually responded and Plaintiff informed them he was in need of decontamination. Defendants ignored Plaintiff's request for assistance.
Defendants Worrell, Soto, Yubeta, and Large went to the clinic holding area to find out why Plaintiff was screaming. Plaintiff showed Defendants that his skin was purplish, burgundy in color from the exposure to the pepper spray without decontamination. Defendants ignored Plaintiff's request; Defendant Soto told Plaintiff he should use the toilet water if he wished to decontaminate. Plaintiff and his cell mate had no clothing.
At approximately 9:00 p.m., Defendant Prior entered the clinic holding area. Defendant Prior ordered Plaintiff and his cellmate to receive some paper boxers. Plaintiff requested that he be provided with decontamination, but Defendant Prior ignored the request.
Plaintiff was later placed into administrative segregation. Plaintiff spent the night sleeping in his contaminated clothing, which caused his mattress and bedding to be covered in chemical agents. The next day, Plaintiff was provided a ten-minute shower. Despite his request, Plaintiff was not provided new linens and had to sleep in the contaminated conditions until April 19, 2007.
Plaintiff submitted a medical request on April 11, 2007, to Defendant Vo, because his skin had begun to blister and peel. Plaintiff's request was ignored. Plaintiff alleges supervisory liability against Defendants Carrasco and Zanchi for authorizing the use of force and failing to supervise, resulting in Plaintiff's exposure to chemical agents for ten days.
To continue reading
Request your trial